Swiss Survey Finds Little Support for a Sugar Tax

90% backed prevention programmes for at-risk groups, making targeted intervention the strongest area of support identified in the poll. Respondents also supported cooperation between the state and businesses, a model that could place schools, health services, employers and food companies in the same prevention framework.

Education received nearly as much backing. 89% favoured compulsory teaching of nutritional principles in schools. In Switzerland, where education is largely organised at cantonal level, putting that preference into practice would require coordination across different school systems and curricula. The survey does not specify which age groups, subjects or teaching methods respondents had in mind.

These results show where public support may be easier to build. Prevention aimed at people considered at risk can appear more proportionate than measures applied to every consumer. School lessons can also shift the focus from restricting purchases to building knowledge, although education alone cannot determine what food families can afford or what products are widely marketed.

The findings leave room for a broader state role. Respondents clearly wanted stronger action, but the preferred route involved programmes, education and cooperation rather than a general tax. That distinction will matter as federal and cantonal authorities assess future obesity policies.

82% supported a ban on advertising for sugary, salty or fatty foods aimed at children under 13, placing child protection well above support for purchase restrictions. The result gives policymakers a clear signal that marketing aimed at younger audiences is more politically acceptable to regulate than the products themselves.

The proposed restriction would target advertising, not the sale of the food. That difference helps explain the gap between support for the child-focused measure and the 19% backing for a minimum purchase age for sugary foods. Respondents appear more willing to limit commercial influence on children than to prevent children from buying specific products through an age rule.

The survey says food manufacturers are working with the Swiss government on a voluntary action plan. The details of that plan are not provided in the source, so its scope, enforcement and timetable remain unclear. Voluntary agreements can allow companies to change marketing practices quickly, but their impact depends on transparent commitments and independent monitoring.

A child advertising ban would also raise practical questions. Regulators would need to define which foods fall within the restriction, how digital marketing is covered and how cross-border platforms are monitored. The poll measures public support for the principle, not the design of an enforceable rule.

Three quarters of respondents said Switzerland’s current obesity measures are insufficient, even as most rejected a new tax. That combination gives the debate a practical direction: public support exists for additional action, but policymakers will need to select measures that command trust and demonstrate results.

The survey offers strong backing for prevention programmes, nutrition teaching and limits on advertising to children. It offers much weaker backing for taxes, information levies and minimum purchase ages. Those preferences may shape the government’s cooperation with food manufacturers as it develops a voluntary action plan.

The industry sponsorship remains central to interpreting the results. The Soft Drinks Information Group represents producers and commissioned the 13th edition of the survey. The poll therefore cannot settle the wider question of whether a sugar tax would reduce consumption, encourage reformulation or place a disproportionate cost on low-income households. Those claims require independent research and transparent modelling.

Switzerland’s next steps will likely involve a mix of federal policy, cantonal education measures and industry commitments. The public figures show which measures can attract broad backing. They do not remove the need to test whether those measures change diets, reduce childhood exposure to marketing or improve health outcomes over time.